The Division Bench held that the petition stands closed due to the withdrawal of the impugned notification and lack of material for refund claims, without adjudging the legality of past collections.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
:: ORDER ::
D.B. PIL PETITION No.16858/ 2012
Mansarovar Nagrik Vikas Mahasamiti, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order : 12.07.2013
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr.N.L.Agrawal for the petitioner.
Mr.G.S.Bapna, Senior Advocate & Advocate General, Rajasthan assisted by Mr.V.Garg for the State-respondents. Ms.Naina Saras for the respondent-Nagar Nigam, Jaipur.
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Heard Mr.N.L.Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.S.Bapna, Senior Advocate & Advocate General, Rajasthan assisted by Mr.V.Garg for the State-respondents and Ms.Naina Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Nagar Nigam, Jaipur.
The petitioner claims itself to be a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Act, 1958. It is averred that the Department of Local Self Government of the State, by letter dated 5.11.2004 issued to the Chief Executive Officers of all Nagar Nigams/ Parishads/ Palikas, had directed for Door-to-Door garbage collection in the principal cities of Rajasthan, as mandated by the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2009. Under the scheme to that effect contracts were awarded to the registered welfare societies and the consumers were required to pay Rs.10/ - per month (for economically weaker sections),
2
Rs.15/ - per month (for low income group) and Rs.20/ - per month (for high income group). The scheme was further improved and a revised circular was issued by the Department of Local Self Governemnt on 17.6.2006 enhancing the user charges @ Rs.20/ -, Rs.25/ - & Rs.30/ - for the aforementioned groups respectively. While the matter rested at that, by the impugned notification dated 25.7.2012, the Department of Local Self Government conveyed its decision to recover the user charges for collection of garbage on the basis of the electricity bills w.e.f. September, 2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Society has submitted a representation on 17.9.2012 before the Principal Secretary of the aforementioned department and eventually, has approached this Court for redress. Annulment of the notification dated 25.7.2012 has been sought for.
The State-respondents, in their reply, have endorsed the validity of the notification citing reasons for correlating the user charges with the electricity bills.
By IA No.25328/ 2013, the respondents have brought on record the notification dated 25.3.2013 ( Annexure-R/ 1) thereto, thereby withdrawing the impugned notification dated 25.7.2012.
Whereas, the learned Advocate General, Rajasthan has argued that in view of the notification dated 25.3.2013, the petition has become infructuous, learned counsel for the petitioner however, without disputing the existence of this notification (dated 25.3.2013) has insisted for a writ of mandamus to direct refund of the user charges already
3
collected on the basis of the notification dated 25.7.2012.
We have duly considered the pleadings and the documents appended thereto and have taken note of the arguments advanced.
To start with, there is no prayer in the petition for an appropriate writ or direction to refund the user charges collected pursuant to the notification dated 25.7.2012. The pleadings on record as a whole also do not indicate the facts and figures pertaining to such collection and also of the payers from whom the same has been realized.
In this view of the matter, having regard to the factum of withdrawal of the impugned notification dated 25.7.2012, we are not inclined, for want of adequate materials on record, to issue any writ or direction as prayed for. It would however, be open for such payers, if so advised, to submit appropriate representations before the concerned respondent-authorities seeking such refund. We make it clear that we have not, by this determination, held that the realization made on the basis of the notification dated 25.7.2012 to be illegal or unauthorized and thus, if such representations are filed, the respondent-authorities would deal with the same in accordance with law. The petition however, stands closed in the these terms.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
Skant/ -
Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed.
Shashi Kant Gaur , PA
Mansarovar Nagrik Vikas Mahasamiti, Jaipur
State of Rajasthan
Nagar Nigam, Jaipur
Amitava Roy
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
